Bad Religion

-------------------------
Natural: Amenable to explanation by physical laws derived from experiment and observation of the universe.

Supernatural: Manifestations or effects necessecarily not of the physical universe. Not testable by observation or experiment.
-------------------------

SouthStar:

Ok, so you affirm that a God (who is necessarily supernatural) does not exist.

What is your reasoning for this, given the definitions you have provided?
Click to expand...

No I do not. Let me explain.

God(s) is a postulate that theists make as an explanation for the universe. Part of this postulate is that god really exists but is not part of the natural universe that we observe. Whatever that means.

Atheists (at least me) do not make this postulate. Done. All I affirm is that the god postulate is unnecessary and, in fact, useless.

By my definitions the only postulates that are rational are natural postulates. Supernatural postulates are, by definition, null.

So, If you wish to argue that science has no place addressing the existence of god as defined by theists, i.e. god is supernatural, then I agree. However, the instant that you claim that your null postulate (god) has some effect in the natural world, then science can be brought to bear on the question.
 
By my definitions the only postulates that are rational are natural postulates. Supernatural postulates are, by definition, null.
Click to expand...

Your definitions make no mention of the terms rational or irrational.

However, the instant that you claim that your null postulate (god) has some effect in the natural world, then science can be brought to bear on the question.
Click to expand...

Funny how you accuse me of things I never said. I am not even a theist, to begin with. But it's not (yet) a crime to misinterpret...

Now, if a theist were to say "It is God's will for gravity to hold the planets in orbit" - how would science 'bear on the question'?
(Of course, assuming the theist's definition of God permits for a God with such capabilities)
 
Listen. What exactly do you want me to say? I claim that my position is rational because it is grounded in objective reality. It is consistent with phenomena in the observable universe.

The theists position is not rational because it is not grounded in objective reality and is not consistent with phenomena in the observable universe.

Shall we work on this?
 
Now, if a theist were to say "It is God's will for gravity to hold the planets in orbit" - how would science 'bear on the question'?
(Of course, assuming the theist's definition of God permits for a God with such capabilities)
Click to expand...

Science would say. Ok. What predictions does your god theory make about the motions of the planets? Show me the equations. No equations? No predictions?

Ok, then I say it's because spacetime is curved by mass in accord with the general theory of relativity and I have the general solution if you want to see all 20 pages of it. All predictions made by GR so far have been confirmed. In objective reality.
 
Last edited:
superluminal said:
Listen. What exactly do you want me to say? I claim that my position is rational because it is grounded in objective reality. It is consistent with phenomena in the observable universe.

The theists position is not rational because it is not grounded in objective reality and is not consistent with phenomena in the observable universe.

Shall we work on this?
Click to expand...

Well ok.

That's another thing we might not be clear on so I'll need you to provide specific definitions of 'rational' and 'irrational' which we can refer to in later conversations. For example, you would have to clarify what you mean by 'grounded in objective reality'. The problem is, in the other thread, you failed to answer my questions on who 'the concensus' entails. Is it every single person, or 'the majority'. And if it is the 'majority', how do you know when the majority agrees on the same thing in exactly the same way? Also, just how many people does it take to form a majority when it comes to matters of determining 'objective reality'.

I tried to make this simpler by getting you to address these issues earlier on but you ignored them, hence our present problems.

Then they would be circular, woudn't they?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know. You are the one who made the assertion with vague references to "rational" and "not rational", not me, and therefore it is logically your responsibility to clarify. Again, as I have said earlier, definitions allow us to be on the same page and minimize the possibility of misinterpreting each other's diction. I'm obviously not going to ask for definitions of every single word - only the ones which are used so popularly as to make their meanings nebulous. So please provide the definitions as I asked.

Science would say. Ok. What predictions does your god theory make about the motions of the planets? Show me the equations. No equations? No predictions?

Ok, then I say it's because spacetime is curved by mass in accord with the general theory of relativity and I have the general solution if you want to see all 20 pages of it. All predictions made by GR so far have been confirmed. In objective reality.
Click to expand...

And if the theist has no equations or predictions, we must remember that the theist did not say he is the one who governs planetary motion.

What do you conclude about the theist's claim in the event that he doesn't have the requested data?

(I personally think the request is specious since you make the assumption that God operates by equations and predictions, both of which are facets of science. If you do not make this assumption then it is illogical to ask the theist for such data in the first place since he never made such a claim. If you do make this assumption then it is superfluous since no one said that is how God operates)
 
Last edited:
No. I have no desire to masturbate over words as you seem to. You will counter everything I say with a "But, remember, so and so said..." I don't care.

Look up rational/irrational and get on with life. I know what they mean. I have looked them up. I'm willing to have a concrete discussion with anyone, but this is going nowhere and seems irrational. I have a dictionary, and so do you.

So, is there a point to all of this? I kinda lost it in all the definitional/philosophical rambling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top